Evilutionist what can you say about this video debunking evolution

a video *successfully* debunking evolution? Let me watch the video, become irritated at how preposterous its claims are, then come back and edit my post to laugh at you.

*EDIT*

This guy claims to be some sort of genetic expert. Great, does he want a gold star?

1. There is MUCH...MUCH....MUCH more evidence supporting scientific theories than biblical theories.

2. There is more to the origins of life than mere genetics. Even if one was to conclude that "hey, going from apes/monkeys/orangutans/whatever to humans IS a big jump!" Maybe then, just MAYBE, there were circumstances involved that could have affected the natural rate of genetic variation and mutation (and there IS a natural rate...look it up). For example: a gamma ray burst from a distant star could have profoundly manipulated our genetic code.

3. Wouldn't you think that this "amazing argument" would have been taken on by more than a single, or even a handful, of "educated people" if it held any sort of logical truth? Seriously, 99% of geneticists, and scientists in general, will laugh at this guy's argument.


Interesting at first, but disappointing when thoroughly researched.

Several theoretical and experimental studies have endeavored to derive the minimal set of genes that are necessary and sufficient to sustain a functioning cell under ideal conditions, that is, in the presence of unlimited amounts of all essential nutrients and in the absence of any adverse factors, including competition. A comparison of the first two completed bacterial genomes, those of the parasites Haemophilus influenzae and Mycoplasma genitalium, produced a version of the minimal gene set consisting of ~250 genes. Very similar estimates were obtained by analyzing viable gene knockouts in Bacillus subtilis, M. genitalium, and Mycoplasma pneumoniae. With the accumulation and comparison of multiple complete genome sequences, it became clear that only ~80 genes of the 250 in the original minimal gene set are represented by orthologs in all life forms. For ~15% of the genes from the minimal gene set, viable knockouts were obtained in M. genitalium; unexpectedly, these included even some of the universal genes. Thus, some of the genes that were included in the first version of the minimal gene set, based on a limited genome comparison, could be, in fact, dispensable. The majority of these genes, however, are likely to encode essential functions but, in the course of evolution, are subject to nonorthologous gene displacement, that is, recruitment of unrelated or distantly related proteins for the same function. Further theoretical and experimental studies within the framework of the minimal-gene-set concept and the ultimate construction of a minimal genome are expected to advance our understanding of the basic principles of cell functioning by systematically detecting nonorthologous gene displacement and deciphering the roles of essential but functionally uncharacterized genes.
Your Laurence Tisdall is going off halfcocked, with minimal science and pitiful understanding.
If you want to completely "debunk" evolution, you will have to come up with something a whole lot better than "minimal gene sets"... if nothing else that actually helps the evolutionist argument.

evolution is not "just a theory not a fact." It is a fact. It's a scientific theory, which is a fancy way of saying a collection of all empirical evidence and mathematical laws into a cohesive explanation that can be used to predict future outcomes.

you can slant anything to your way of thinking....

http://youtu.be/kJM-VbPAH48